| Summary: | [PATCH] linux.cf Debian section out of date, doesn't deal with libglide3 right, or external libs | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | xorg | Reporter: | Daniel Stone <daniel> | ||||
| Component: | Build/Monolithic | Assignee: | Xorg Project Team <xorg-team> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | high | CC: | julien.lafon, roland.mainz | ||||
| Version: | git | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | All | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Daniel Stone
2004-11-22 10:25:00 UTC
Created attachment 1333 [details] [review] large-ish patch Comment on attachment 1333 [details] [review] large-ish patch make roland less angry Daniel, it would be a good idea if you could obmit the following offending section: +/* Xprint should be banned from earth because: + * - it uses its own site.def file. + * - it doesn't respect that this is debian even if told so. What do you mean here? + * - it uses its set of Imake Defines. (like if there are not enough around). What do you mean here? + * - it is shipped outside already. Isn't this history now as Xprint is again part of X.org? + * - people claims that it has GL support! how cool.. look here (from xprint_site.def): + * #define BuildGlxExt NO This is wrong. Anything from the old Xprint tree has no GL support, only the new version in the X.org tree supports this feature. + * because the above isn't supported yet. + * - it builds (again???) BuildFreetype2Library and fonts??? + * - a part of its license is not clear. Please prove this claim. Everyone has commited all files under the MIT license except files in xc/extras/ and claiming that there is something 'illegal' must be proven and reported to the X.org board of directors ASAP. If you cannot prove this claim remove it. Thanks! > Daniel, it would be a good idea if you could obmit the following offending > > section: Apologies, I grabbed the general version instead of the vetted version of this one. Hooray for about fourteen source trees. > +/* Xprint should be banned from earth because: > + * - it uses its own site.def file. > + * - it doesn't respect that this is debian even if told so. > What do you mean here? I am unclear; I didn't actually author this rant. > + * - it uses its set of Imake Defines. (like if there are not enough around). > What do you mean here? See above. > + * - it is shipped outside already. > Isn't this history now as Xprint is again part of X.org? I believe this stemmed from a misunderstanding, thinking that xprint.org was still the canonical Xprint implementation. > + * - people claims that it has GL support! how cool.. look here (from > xprint_site.def): > + * #define BuildGlxExt NO > This is wrong. Anything from the old Xprint tree has no GL support, only the new > version in the X.org tree supports this feature. Maybe 'xprint_site.def' is a clue as to comment #1? > + * because the above isn't supported yet. > + * - it builds (again???) BuildFreetype2Library and fonts??? > + * - a part of its license is not clear. > Please prove this claim. Everyone has commited all files under the MIT license > except files in xc/extras/ and claiming that there is something 'illegal' must > be proven and reported to the X.org board of directors ASAP. If you cannot prove > this claim remove it. Dude, stop being so hostile, please. I suggest you review http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2004/10/msg00025.html and the rest of that thread. > Thanks! You're welcome! daniel, do we still care about reducing debian's monolith build diff? (In reply to comment #5) > daniel, do we still care about reducing debian's monolith build diff? no! oh joyous day. :) |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.